wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 9:22 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in
messagenews:Xns9D40D18DF3337lloydspmindspringcom@2 16.168.3.70...



Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

And some extra ammo......

Look what Harry Reid Hid deep in the Health Care Bill

Unbelievable - Harry Reid Hidden deep in the Health Care Bill this
passage.

They never stop, they will keep trying to shove this down our throats
until they get it through...pass this on to everyone...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the
maxim that darkness hates the light.

Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is
Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future
Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous
legislation!

Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ".
it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives
to
consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would
repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law,
no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of
Section
3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in
Congress wish otherwise!!

snip

This is not true, Lloyd. It's an amateurish misreading of the text by
RedState, which was in turn picked up by Sarah ("Death Panel") Palin, our
Idiot-in-Chief. Then the Washington Times and the right-wing blogosphere
revved up their engines and drove over the cliff.

Here's the real story. This kind of *rules* limitation has been done
several
times in the past. It is not a *legislation* limitation. Congress can
overturn the whole thing any time they want to, with a regular vote:

http://www.neutralsource.org/content/blog/detail/1452/

It is not Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that says future
congresses can't overturn it. It wouldn't stand up if they tried.

--
Ed Huntress

If that is the case, why did they bother to put the words in the bill?

Dan

It's all procedural. There are several explanations around the Web, but if
you've followed federal legislation over the past few years, you'll see
several similar uses of that phrasing.

It keeps certain provisions in the bill from being nibbled away by gerbils.
It does NOT keep it from being overturned at the drop of a hat, should
Congress so desire.

--
Ed Huntress